We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Endoscopic endonasal versus open repair of anterior skull base CSF leak, meningocele, and encephalocele: a systematic review of outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Repair of anterior skull base cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, encephaloceles, and meningoceles can prevent meningitis, intracranial abscess, and pneumocephalus. Various surgical techniques have been employed for repair, including open transcranial and transfacial methods. The endoscopic endonasal approach represents a minimal access but equally aggressive alternative. We conducted a systematic review of case series and case reports to assess the role of endoscopy in the management of these lesions.
METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the literature (1950-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series for repair of anterior skull base CSF leaks, encephaloceles, and meningoceles. Comparisons were made for patient and defect characteristics as well as success of repair, morbidity, and outcome.
RESULTS: Seventy-one studies, involving 1178 patients, were included. There was no significant difference in the rate of successful repair (~90%) between the open and endoscopic cohorts. Compared with open approaches, complications were significantly lower in the endoscopic group, including meningitis (3.9% versus 1.1%, p = 0.034), abscess/wound infection (6.8% versus 0.7%, p < 0.001), and sepsis (3.8% versus 0%, p = 0.003). Perioperative mortality was also lower in the endoscopic group (0%) compared with the open group (1.4%) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review supports the endoscopic endonasal approach as a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of anterior skull base defects, which may be preferable in select patients.
METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the literature (1950-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series for repair of anterior skull base CSF leaks, encephaloceles, and meningoceles. Comparisons were made for patient and defect characteristics as well as success of repair, morbidity, and outcome.
RESULTS: Seventy-one studies, involving 1178 patients, were included. There was no significant difference in the rate of successful repair (~90%) between the open and endoscopic cohorts. Compared with open approaches, complications were significantly lower in the endoscopic group, including meningitis (3.9% versus 1.1%, p = 0.034), abscess/wound infection (6.8% versus 0.7%, p < 0.001), and sepsis (3.8% versus 0%, p = 0.003). Perioperative mortality was also lower in the endoscopic group (0%) compared with the open group (1.4%) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review supports the endoscopic endonasal approach as a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of anterior skull base defects, which may be preferable in select patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app